5 search hits

Several articulatory strategies are available during the production of /u/, all resulting in a similar acoustic output. /u/ has two main constrictions, at the velum and at the lips. A perturbation of either constriction can be compensated at the other one, e.g wider constriction at the velum by more lip protrusion, wider lip opening by more tongue retraction. This study investigates whether speakers use this relation under perturbation. Six speakers were provided with palatal prostheses which were worn for two weeks. Speakers were instructed to make a serious attempt to produce normal speech. Their speech was recorded via EMA and acoustics several times over the adaptation period. Formant values of /u/-productions were measured. Velar constriction width and lip protrusion were estimated. For four speakers a correlation between constriction width and lip protrusion was found. A negative correlation between lip protrusion and F1 or F2 could sometimes be observed, but no correlation occurred between constriction size and either of the formants. The results show that under perturbation speakers use motor equivalent strategies in order to adapt. The correlation between constriction size and lip protrusion is stronger than in studies investigating unperturbed speech. This could be because under perturbation speakers are inclined to try out several strategies in order to reach the acoustic target and the co-variability might thus be greater.

The palate shape of four speakers was changed by a prosthesis which either lowered the palate or retracted the alveoles. Subjects wore the prosthesis for two weeks and were recorded several times via EMA. Results of articulatory measurements show that speakers use different compensation methods at different stages of the adaptation. They lower the tongue immediately after the insertion of the prosthesis. Other compensation methods as for example lip protrusion are only acquired after longer practising periods. The results are interpreted as supporting the existence of different mappings between motor commands, vocal tract shape and auditory-acoustic target.

A two-week perturbation EMA-experiment was carried out with palatal prostheses. Articulatory effort for five speakers was assessed by means of peak acceleration and jerk during the tongue tip gestures from /t/ towards /i, e, o, y, u/. After a period of no change speakers showed an increase in these values. Towards the end of the experiment the values decreased. The results are interpreted as three phases of carrying out changes in the internal model. At first, the complete production system is shifted in relation to the palatal change, afterwards speakers explore different production mechanisms which involves more articulatory effort. This second phase can be seen as a training phase where several articulatory strategies are explored. In the third phase speakers start to select an optimal movement strategy to produce the sounds so that the values decrease.

The study investigates the contribution of tactile and auditory feedback in the adaptation of /s/ towards a palatal prosthesis. Five speakers were recorded via electromagnetic articulography, at first without the prosthesis, then with the prosthesis and auditory feedback masked, and finally with the prosthesis and auditory feedback available. Tongue position, jaw position and acoustic centre of gravity of productions of the sound were measured. The results show that the initial adaptation attempts without auditory feedback are dependent on the prosthesis type and directed towards reaching the original tongue palate contact pattern. Speakers with a prosthesis which retracted the alveolar ridge retracted the tongue. Speakers with a prosthesis which did not change the place of the alveolar ridge did not retract the tongue. All speakers lowered the jaw. In a second adaptation step with auditory feedback available speakers reorganised tongue and jaw movements in order to produce more subtle acoustic characteristics of the sound such as the high amplitude noise which is typical for sibilants.

Low- dimensional and speaker-independent linear vocal tract parametrizations can be obtained using the 3-mode PARAFAC factor analysis procedure first introduced by Harshman et al. (1977) and discussed in a series of subsequent papers in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (Jackson (1988), Nix et al. (1996), Hoole (1999), Zheng et al. (2003)). Nevertheless, some questions of importance have been left unanswered, e.g. none of the papers using this method has provided a consistent interpretation of the terms usually referred to as "speaker weights". This study attempts an exploration of what influences their reliability as a first step towards their consistent interpretation. With this in mind, we undertook a systematic comparison of the classical PARAFAC1 algorithm with a relaxed version, of it, PARAFAC2. This comparison was carried out on two different corpora acquired by the articulograph, which varied in vowel qualities, consonantal contexts, and the paralinguistic features accent and speech rate. The difference between these statistical approaches can grossly be described as follows: In PARAFAC1, observation units pertain to the same set of variables and the observation units are comparable. In PARAFAC2, observations pertain to the same set of variables, but observation units are not comparable. Such a situation can be easily conceived in a situation such as we are describing: The operationalization we took relies on the comparability of fleshpoint data acquired from different speakers, which need not be a good assumption due to influences like sensor placement and morphological conditions.
In particular, the comparison between the two different approaches is carried out by means of so-called "leverages" on different component matrices originating in regression analysis, calculated as v = diag(A(A A)−1A ) and delivering information on how "influential" a particular loading matrix is for the model. This analysis could potentially be carried out component by component, but we confined ourselves to effects on the global factor structure. For vowels, the most influential loadings are those for the tense cognates of non-palatal vowels. For speakers, the most prominent result is the relative absence of effects of the paralinguistic variables. Results generally indicate that there is quite little influence of the model specification (i.e. PARAFAC1 or PARAFAC2) on vowel and subject components. The patterns for the articulators indicate that there are strong differences between speakers with respect to the most influential measurement as revealed by PARAFAC2: In particular, the most influential y-contribution is the tongue-back for some talkers and the tongue-dorsum for other speakers. With respect to the speaker weights, again, the leverage patterns are very similar for both PARAFAC-versions. These patterns converge with the results of the loading plots, where the articulator profiles seem to be most altered by the use of PARAFAC2. These findings, in general, are interpreted as evidence for the reliability of the PARAFAC1 speaker weights.